I’ve been playing this game a lot since I got it on saturday and I’ve been seeing a lot of people complaining about the repetitiveness on these forums but it confuses me. Why is this game seen as repetitive while games like L4D are praised? L4D did the exact same singleplayer/multiplayer thing and it was suddenly game of the year, while this game is suddenly a repetitive boring game. Is it that people expect the same thing from similar looking games? I mean the only thing that L4D has on this game is two different factions… Does playing as a zombie change it up that much? No it really doesn’t. Both games have the same objective based maps and yet in one game it is seen as bad and in the other it is praised, but there is no reason. I can only conclude that the majority of people see this game and think “CALL OF DUTY” while people see L4D and think “COOL NEW GAME”. Then people think are disappointed because this is more like a “COOL NEW GAME”. So they bash it and say it’s repetitive…
What makes this game repetitive and L4D not?
Pretty much. That’s the simple truth.
Someone at some point mentioned “repetitive” as a fault in Brink’s gameplay and now it has become the cool thing to do; blame repetition. Though, without repetition, theoretically, it no longer is a game… hmm?
No, there’s seriously something different between the two games. First of all, nothing in this game is really that innovative. Most aspects of the game are direct rips from previous games which most of us have already played a lot of. L4D, on the other hand, was an actually innovative, polished, very fun game. L4D’s also have voice communications from day 1 and Valve takes there time to develop games well and play test (i.e. Valve time,which is >>>>> Splash/Bethesda time). I’d rather a game be delayed and good than early and Brink.
So, tl;dr: I think the main factors why Brink gets boring fast and games like L4D don,'t are the fact that Brink isn’t that innovative - most of the stuff in it has been experienced ad nauseum at this point in time, and the game critically lacks polish.
[QUOTE=Dopaminergic;315217]No, there’s seriously something different between the two games. First of all, nothing in this game is really that innovative. Most aspects of the game are direct rips from previous games which most of us have already played a lot of. L4D, on the other hand, was an actually innovative, polished, very fun game. L4D’s also have voice communications from day 1 and Valve takes there time to develop games well and play test (i.e. Valve time,which is >>>>> Splash/Bethesda time). I’d rather a game be delayed and good than early and Brink.
So, tl;dr: I think the main factors why Brink gets boring fast and games like L4D don,'t are the fact that Brink isn’t that innovative - most of the stuff in it has been experienced ad nauseum at this point in time, and the game critically lacks polish.[/QUOTE]
Brinks innovations:
SMART
on the fly class system
separation of class and stats
a game that promotes team play (sadly that is an innovation)
light, heavy, and medium body types
dismissal of traditional gametypes
merging of story and multiplayer
L4D’s innovations:
AI director
merging of story and multiplayer
Don’t get me wrong L4D is great, but it really didn’t do much different besides add zombies into the mix. Actually scratch that the AI director and the merging of story and multiplayer were pretty significant, but Brink does half of that already and has so much other stuff.
Games you enjoy are repetitively (or repeatedly) fun.
Games you don’t enjoy are repetitively (or repeatedly) boring.
Therefore saying a game is repetitive just means that you didn’t find it fun enough to hold your attention for long. It’s purely a matter of opinion, but people argue it as if it were a fact because, well, it’s an internet forum
Uhhh, which ones? I keep asking people this. No one answers.
The reason why people feel that Brink is competative is because it lacks differentiation between player interactions, I think. You’re always hitting F to interact. Brink should have had different levels of difficulty in multiplayaer that affects the controls, imho.
The answer to the OP’s question is simple.
VOIP.
L4D is as much about the social interaction between players, as gameplay. Imagine L4D without voice chat, definately would be adifferent experience. I’m not sure how well it works on colsole BRINK but on PC its bugged to hell.
L4D can be enjoyed by all players, with limited tactical requirements - at least on the lower skill level. As long as you know to stick together, and figure out that at least 1 player should carry a molotov for the tank, you can complete all of the campaigns. Advanced skill does require more strategy, but not a huge amount. Certainly you can improve and add to the basic tactics, and it does make the game more fun - but the “entry level” for enjoying L4D is definitely lower than it is for Brink.
Also, since you only have 4 players on your team, the potential for disorganised chaos is somewhat lower - if 2 of you are working together and the other 2 are going solo, there’s still a good chance you’ll make progress. The odds are lower with Brink because of the higher player count - and the fact that a higher number of organised players are required in order to progress/succeed.
TL;DR - I don’t think L4D is any less repetitive than the next game. Instead, it’s easy level of entry makes it’s appeal wider. Bigger audience = longer life of a game, in most circumstances.
[QUOTE=NathanDavid;315210]Pretty much. That’s the simple truth.
Someone at some point mentioned “repetitive” as a fault in Brink’s gameplay and now it has become the cool thing to do; blame repetition. Though, without repetition, theoretically, it no longer is a game… hmm?[/QUOTE]
Indeed. And poker is a very simple and repetitive as far as gameplay is concerned. Yet it still seems wildly popular despite being around for 10 centuries in some form or another.
Nothing wrong with repetitive unless you have to have some kind of new and unique stimulus every couple of hours in order to remain interested in something…
[QUOTE=Ziggus;315255]Games you enjoy are repetitively (or repeatedly) fun.
Games you don’t enjoy are repetitively (or repeatedly) boring.
Therefore saying a game is repetitive just means that you didn’t find it fun enough to hold your attention for long. It’s purely a matter of opinion, but people argue it as if it were a fact because, well, it’s an internet forum[/QUOTE]
perfect summary! seriously!
its a the point of view dictating if you choose the one statement or the other!
vice versa i can easily say that L4D and BRINK games greatly differ from each other (tho it’s the same maps and objectives). both in a good and bad way. however that my own perception…
[QUOTE=trollface;315648]
VOIP.
L4D is as much about the social interaction between players, as gameplay. Imagine L4D without voice chat, definately would be adifferent experience. I’m not sure how well it works on colsole BRINK but on PC its bugged to hell.[/QUOTE]
Two commands in the config file = Amazing VOIP in Brink
L4D is a very repetitive game by the way.
LFD is very repetitive, any shooter is. You’re doing the same thing over and over again regardless of your game mode. However, it does have many different and very fun game modes. Versus, Campaign, Scavenger, and they’re all a ton of fun to repeat and continue to do better. And the stats at the end always make me lol.
Brink is still new and fresh and very fun for me. There are only like 2-3 missions that are really fun to repeat though. If they keep a stream of new stuff coming in it will be fine. But this is why other games have the standard game modes, they have a better ability to withstand time and constant repetition.
Dismissal of the standard game modes wasn’t innovative. It was just left out… More is never a bad thing in the case of games.
i guess that depends on you and your team. my friends i play with work ALOT of stratagy, even more so as the infected, and set up ambushes constantly on the fly. RARELY lose 
Forgot about that, it does guarantee each playthrough to be different.
Even though Zombies and Brink Bots are totally different entities, and after they change the AI behavior waaaay different entities.
You are underestimating the time SD takes to build their maps, playtest them, check all details, add some, polish, etc… and that’s why they release few and concentrate on 1 game mode and build their map exactly for this gamemode. At least that was the case on their preceding title, and I don’t see much reason for them to do otherwise here.
I keep seeing here people, I guess not really used to ET games, who just go past all these details, label the maps as grossly done and with only chokepoint, and then go on comparison with other games.
[QUOTE=dazman76;315656]
…the “entry level” for enjoying L4D is definitely lower than it is for Brink…
Also, since you only have 4 players on your team, the potential for disorganised chaos is somewhat lower - if 2 of you are working together and the other 2 are going solo, there’s still a good chance you’ll make progress[/QUOTE]
In my experience if half your team was **** against any decent vs team or on a higher difficulty youd be toast faster than you could say ragequit. Less players means emphasis on everyone carrying his weight is higher and if you dont know anything in l4d youre a liability and you will lose and die a screaming death by hunters tearing into your sweet flesh whereas in Brink you at least waste the enemies bullets and divert attention by being there and if you toss out some buffs or ammo, pow thats actually a big help already and youll get xp and progress even if you dont win. Id say the entry level on Brink is lower, and thats a good thing. Ya get the occasional medic merrily syringing his butt while everything dies but a base level teamwork is always there and thats fun. Compared to the horrible stuff ive seen in L4d pubs everyone is a tactical genius.
Repetiveness, well every L4d 1/2 public game is different, youll enjoy it as long as you got the ability to laugh at grandmas and/or monkeys doin the darnest things. Friend campaign, at some point everyone knows what to do and its not really a challenge anymore. Friend vs, at some point everyone knows their thing and youll see the same (at the same, best spots) ambushes from everyone and the only variation will be how well its executed or how bad the game decides to screw you over with spawns - granted, that took a little longer to get old 
Oh yeah anybody remember how l4d only had 2 vs maps for the longest time? 
Its a weird comparison anyways. Whys this game repetitive and X is not? Ive seen profiles with like 2000 hours of TF2 and i think how can you sink so much time into one game, and theres prolly someone saying welp thats because…i like it? :eek:
lol word. i also remember L4D2 going through 2 weeks of HORRIBLE lag and game play before it was worked out.
[QUOTE=Kalbuth;315731]You are underestimating the time SD takes to build their maps, playtest them, check all details, add some, polish, etc… and that’s why they release few and concentrate on 1 game mode and build their map exactly for this gamemode. At least that was the case on their preceding title, and I don’t see much reason for them to do otherwise here.
I keep seeing here people, I guess not really used to ET games, who just go past all these details, label the maps as grossly done and with only chokepoint, and then go on comparison with other games.[/QUOTE]
I keep finding amazing ways to use tactics in offline mode and then carrying that into my play sessions with friends. Great flanking routes and so on. Take the security tower for instance. Most people don’t realize that when you run the intel that there’s a stairwell you can go up and you can jump off that balcony wall hop and land really close to where you finish with the objective thus avoiding most of the fire in that courtyard.
Or that when you get the hostage out. That if you run and clamber up those boxes and hop that railing and then jump down those stairs you’ll end up outside able to flank the enemy and keep them from getting to the hostage and knocking him down as much resulting in a faster time in stopwatch mode.
Or that when you flank them there’s some boxes allowing even a medium to get up either side of that security wall so you can man the machine gun while your team escorts the hostage through the area with all the barricades. (Just make sure you’re a good engineer with a turret and landmines at the door or you’ll get ambushed on the gun)
I have a blast playing brink and the maps are brilliant.